Assuming that those companies won't overcorrect, leading to a boom-bust cycle. Or that those companies aren't being temporarily slowed down because of, say a recession. If that's the case, then the cost to society of temporary makework may be worthwhile for the consistency it brings.
But the above is theoretical. You may feel that car companies are a dying industry, but keep in mind that they forced the companies to streamline, then ran "cash for clunkers" which, depending on the oil supply, may have been presciently brilliant.
I agree that the companies could certainly over correct - but to let nature take its course (so to speak) costs the taxpayer nothing, whereas creating make-work for industries that make up a significant portion of the GDP costs billions. The question becomes, is the money spent worth it - especially taking into account the opportunity costs since that money could have been spent elsewhere.
In that sense, I see that "Cash for Clunkers" failed. Sure, it sold cars and helped the auto industry, but it was a pretty raw deal for the taxpayers, didn't actually help the economy in the long term, and the environmental impact was minimal at best and certainly far below what we could have achieved by spending the billions on that program elsewhere.
Some subsidies are for completely different reasons: to make a market more perfect, to invest in a natural monopoly to gain a moral right to regulate it, because the supply is vital for national defense (imagine if China made the cheapest food in the world, and thus had all the farmers), to fix externalities.
We'd be much better off if these resources were invested in productive work (that could include investing in training for those that lose their jobs to do this work)
Assuming "productive" means "able to earn enough income to not need subsidies", some people will never be productive. And how many jobs do we want someone to be forced to go through? Efficiency is great, but producing the most for no reason isn't. Basically, the reason pure capitalism keeps getting screwed with is that some of those widgets being bought and sold are people with intrinsic value.
Now I do agree with you that there are cases where the government should step into some markets. But are subidies really the answer? If we do not like the way China is undercutting the US in, say, food - does it make more sense to sudsidize the US farmers so they can be competitive with the Chinese, or does it make more sense to put a tariff on impored food to raise the cost to the point where it's on par with domestic food? One of these is going to cost the government billions, whereas the other is going to actually make money for the government. Now ultimately I suppose the taxpayers/citizens fund both of them, but I know which one I would pick for various reasons.
Assuming "productive" means "able to earn enough income to not need subsidies", some people will never be productive. And how many jobs do we want someone to be forced to go through? Efficiency is great, but producing the most for no reason isn't. Basically, the reason pure capitalism keeps getting screwed with is that some of those widgets being bought and sold are people with intrinsic value.
Actually, that kind of touches on a problem I really don't have a good answer for. Say everyone had to work for 30 hours a week to insure a comfortable life for the population. Unfortunently it seems our system would rather put 75% of the population at work for 40 hours a week and leave the rest unemployed. I haven't come up with a good solution for that. Though I would argue that paying people unemployment is better than giving them make-work, as the make-work also costs resources and creates pollution.
That's a pretty talking point, but I'm not aware of subsidies on a company-by-company basis. If it's industry-by-industry, well sometimes the industry should
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
With wealth and progressive income taxes, its actually *more* benefical to have well compensated CEOS. If you had $300 million, i'd rather it go to one individual where $100m was being taxed back, than say 30,000 individuals that are living in a low income tax bracket where their taxation rate is minimal.
What a load of bull. If you give that money to poorer people, they'll spend it, moving the money through the system where it will be taxed many times in the various steps (sales tax, etc). If you give the money to the CEO, he'll probably invest most of it subjecting it to much less tax.
Even if your goal is to subsidize an industry, it's still an inefficient use of resources. They've basically been used to prevent industries that are due for a downsizing from correcting themselves. Furthermore, they don't solve any of the fundamental problems these industries face, so basically the correction will still happen at some point in the future. Sure, allowing the correction to happen would result in companies going out of business and people losing their jobs - but I would argue that these companies and jobs are doomed anyway, and all that the "cast for" programs do use up resources for non-productive make-work activities in a vain attempt to ward off the inevitable. We'd be much better off if these resources were invested in productive work (that could include investing in training for those that lose their jobs to do this work). Even the industries that we try to boost would end up better off, as it would be the weaker, non-competitive companies that are the ones that would be kill off.
And that's not even going into the whole question of why the government should be able to choose winners and losers, and boost certain industries benefiting a few while everyone else has to pay for it through their taxes.
Behold, the power of the internet: https://online.kitco.com/bullion/. Check the "pool accounts" at the bottom - the spread between sell and buy is $5 per ounce. Their pool accounts are kind of like day trading of precious metals, so while you're buying real gold the actual chunk of metal is in a vault somewhere. If you want to take physical possession of your gold, the spread is about $25 per ounce plus shipping charges if you deal with generic bars and rounds.
That one is the lucky Buran. The one mentioned at the end of the article as currently being stored in a hanger ended up being destroyed a couple of years later when the hanger collapsed.
The problem with broken-windows style thinking is that it is an inefficient use of resources. There is plenty of productive work that needs to be done in this country, like for example upgrading and repairing our crumbling infrastructure. I'd much rather the government spend money on things like that rather than non-productive broken-windows type things like the various "Cash for" type programs.
Where do you get toner for one of those for $20? I got that exact printer sitting here, needs a new toner cartridge, and I wasn't too thrilled about spending around $100 for it (though I know it'll last a loooong time). Thanks.
Right, it was the AC that attached the brand name to it, because it has more impact if it's Apple. This same factory makes electronics for Apple, Microsoft, LG, Sony,........
Anyone running previous versions of Windows (3.0, 3.1, Windows 386, etc) was running a multitasking OS. Though I'll certainly agree it wasn't anywhere as good as the Amiga.
Sure the program was flawed. But stop spewing the biased implication that the program's result was just "going from 20 to 25mpg".
That may have been allowed under the law. But the actual results were that the average trade-in went from 15.8 to 24.9mpg. [dot.gov]
Actually, it's a lot worse than the parent said. If you look at the average fuel economy for the vehicles sold the two months the program was in effect, it's only 0.6MPG and 0.7MPG higher than it would be if the program wasn't in effect. Source (warning: PDF). So in other words, people are already buying more fuel efficient vehicles, and thus all the program really did was give a bunch of people free taxpayer money to buy a car they probably would have bought anyway in the near future.
What we have here is that the government is maintaining lists that say certain people cannot partake in certain activities. Anyone can be added to these lists by the government without due process or even a stated reason, and once on a list, there is no appeal process to get ones named removed from the list. That's the problem. The fact that it's about flying is really only a minor side detail.
I could see the use for things like sporting events, which people generally want to watch live anyway, and the OTA broadcast is going to be better quality than what you can get streaming.
It's called "marketing speak" because it was a bunch of marketers that decided to go against convention and redefine the word megabyte to make their drives look bigger than they actually were (that would be the "usable capacity").
People tend to replace PCs more often because it's cheaper to do so, but you can pretty much install XP (an OS that will still be supported for four more years) on any PC made in the last 10 years and it will work fine. Actually most people I know are running PCs older than 3 years now, as most people who have at least a P4 really don't feel the need to upgrade.
I must say I have never had any luck with WD drives, with my general finding is they don't last long and tend to die without warning. And this goes back to the days when 200MB was a big drive.
On the other hand, I find the acceptance of illegal immigrants as a version of modern-day slavery. The whole reason that we won't either make them full citizens (bestowing them with the rights that the rest of us have) or kick them out of the country is that we would then lose access to an under-class of people that we can exploit for cheap labor.
The community college I went to about 10 years ago was trying out some four year programs (one of them which was nursing). $30k would be $3750 per semester which was about 3 times what I was paying back then. Tuition has certainly gone up since then, but I would think it would still be doable with $30k. Note that this figure would not include things like room and board, which often gets rolled into the cost of going to a traditional four year university that has on-campus housing.
Which keeps people busy and drawing a paycheck. Which by the usual measures is I think considered to be a better economy that one where people are looking for work half the time but still have a better standard of living (even while unemployed) than in the busy-work case.
It's still a worse economy. You're basically wasting labor and resources on non-productive activities. Granted, our current government is a big fan of this kind of thing (see economically bad programs like "Cash for Clunkers") as it keeps people busy and employed, but you have to look at the oppertunity costs. What if those people were doing something actually productive, like building up infanstructure, or developing new technologies? What if the money spent on this stuff was invested in the future? Shouldn't the limited resources used for this kind of thing be conserved for actually useful purposes? The other problem is that no one wants to pay people for non-productive work, so usually it's the government paying people (either directly or non-directly) and often financing it with debt.
Several auto parts stores in my area will loan you the machine to read the code for no cost. They generally ask to hold your driver's license while you have the device - the intent is that you'll go out in the parking lot use it, and come right back. They found that people generally come back in and buy the parts they need once they know what's going on, so it's quite profitable for them to do this. The only snag is some of the codes are propriety so if you can't find it on Google sometimes only the dealer can tell you what they mean.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the companies could certainly over correct - but to let nature take its course (so to speak) costs the taxpayer nothing, whereas creating make-work for industries that make up a significant portion of the GDP costs billions. The question becomes, is the money spent worth it - especially taking into account the opportunity costs since that money could have been spent elsewhere.
In that sense, I see that "Cash for Clunkers" failed. Sure, it sold cars and helped the auto industry, but it was a pretty raw deal for the taxpayers, didn't actually help the economy in the long term, and the environmental impact was minimal at best and certainly far below what we could have achieved by spending the billions on that program elsewhere.
Now I do agree with you that there are cases where the government should step into some markets. But are subidies really the answer? If we do not like the way China is undercutting the US in, say, food - does it make more sense to sudsidize the US farmers so they can be competitive with the Chinese, or does it make more sense to put a tariff on impored food to raise the cost to the point where it's on par with domestic food? One of these is going to cost the government billions, whereas the other is going to actually make money for the government. Now ultimately I suppose the taxpayers/citizens fund both of them, but I know which one I would pick for various reasons.
Actually, that kind of touches on a problem I really don't have a good answer for. Say everyone had to work for 30 hours a week to insure a comfortable life for the population. Unfortunently it seems our system would rather put 75% of the population at work for 40 hours a week and leave the rest unemployed. I haven't come up with a good solution for that. Though I would argue that paying people unemployment is better than giving them make-work, as the make-work also costs resources and creates pollution.
What a load of bull. If you give that money to poorer people, they'll spend it, moving the money through the system where it will be taxed many times in the various steps (sales tax, etc). If you give the money to the CEO, he'll probably invest most of it subjecting it to much less tax.
Even if your goal is to subsidize an industry, it's still an inefficient use of resources. They've basically been used to prevent industries that are due for a downsizing from correcting themselves. Furthermore, they don't solve any of the fundamental problems these industries face, so basically the correction will still happen at some point in the future. Sure, allowing the correction to happen would result in companies going out of business and people losing their jobs - but I would argue that these companies and jobs are doomed anyway, and all that the "cast for" programs do use up resources for non-productive make-work activities in a vain attempt to ward off the inevitable. We'd be much better off if these resources were invested in productive work (that could include investing in training for those that lose their jobs to do this work). Even the industries that we try to boost would end up better off, as it would be the weaker, non-competitive companies that are the ones that would be kill off.
And that's not even going into the whole question of why the government should be able to choose winners and losers, and boost certain industries benefiting a few while everyone else has to pay for it through their taxes.
Behold, the power of the internet: https://online.kitco.com/bullion/. Check the "pool accounts" at the bottom - the spread between sell and buy is $5 per ounce. Their pool accounts are kind of like day trading of precious metals, so while you're buying real gold the actual chunk of metal is in a vault somewhere. If you want to take physical possession of your gold, the spread is about $25 per ounce plus shipping charges if you deal with generic bars and rounds.
Did you even read the first half of the paragraph you quoted? That's not what the parent said at all.
That one is the lucky Buran. The one mentioned at the end of the article as currently being stored in a hanger ended up being destroyed a couple of years later when the hanger collapsed.
http://www.buran-energia.com/bourane-buran/bourane-fin.php
The problem with broken-windows style thinking is that it is an inefficient use of resources. There is plenty of productive work that needs to be done in this country, like for example upgrading and repairing our crumbling infrastructure. I'd much rather the government spend money on things like that rather than non-productive broken-windows type things like the various "Cash for" type programs.
Where do you get toner for one of those for $20? I got that exact printer sitting here, needs a new toner cartridge, and I wasn't too thrilled about spending around $100 for it (though I know it'll last a loooong time). Thanks.
Since 1995, when Microsoft added the "Application key" to the keyboard which functions just like the right mouse button.
You might want to take that up with the BBC.
Anyone running previous versions of Windows (3.0, 3.1, Windows 386, etc) was running a multitasking OS. Though I'll certainly agree it wasn't anywhere as good as the Amiga.
Any phone that could run Opera Mini?
Actually, it's a lot worse than the parent said. If you look at the average fuel economy for the vehicles sold the two months the program was in effect, it's only 0.6MPG and 0.7MPG higher than it would be if the program wasn't in effect. Source (warning: PDF). So in other words, people are already buying more fuel efficient vehicles, and thus all the program really did was give a bunch of people free taxpayer money to buy a car they probably would have bought anyway in the near future.
What we have here is that the government is maintaining lists that say certain people cannot partake in certain activities. Anyone can be added to these lists by the government without due process or even a stated reason, and once on a list, there is no appeal process to get ones named removed from the list. That's the problem. The fact that it's about flying is really only a minor side detail.
I could see the use for things like sporting events, which people generally want to watch live anyway, and the OTA broadcast is going to be better quality than what you can get streaming.
I wouldn't count on it. Barring some major unforeseen circumstance, A decent sized fraction of the planes flying today will still be flying in 2035.
It's called "marketing speak" because it was a bunch of marketers that decided to go against convention and redefine the word megabyte to make their drives look bigger than they actually were (that would be the "usable capacity").
People tend to replace PCs more often because it's cheaper to do so, but you can pretty much install XP (an OS that will still be supported for four more years) on any PC made in the last 10 years and it will work fine. Actually most people I know are running PCs older than 3 years now, as most people who have at least a P4 really don't feel the need to upgrade.
Not to mention that Snow Leopard also must run on 32 bit hardware (the first Core Duo Intel Macs).
Assuming that all five CDs are completely full, they'll take up slightly more than 0.1% of the drive. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of space left.
I must say I have never had any luck with WD drives, with my general finding is they don't last long and tend to die without warning. And this goes back to the days when 200MB was a big drive.
On the other hand, I find the acceptance of illegal immigrants as a version of modern-day slavery. The whole reason that we won't either make them full citizens (bestowing them with the rights that the rest of us have) or kick them out of the country is that we would then lose access to an under-class of people that we can exploit for cheap labor.
The community college I went to about 10 years ago was trying out some four year programs (one of them which was nursing). $30k would be $3750 per semester which was about 3 times what I was paying back then. Tuition has certainly gone up since then, but I would think it would still be doable with $30k. Note that this figure would not include things like room and board, which often gets rolled into the cost of going to a traditional four year university that has on-campus housing.
It's still a worse economy. You're basically wasting labor and resources on non-productive activities. Granted, our current government is a big fan of this kind of thing (see economically bad programs like "Cash for Clunkers") as it keeps people busy and employed, but you have to look at the oppertunity costs. What if those people were doing something actually productive, like building up infanstructure, or developing new technologies? What if the money spent on this stuff was invested in the future? Shouldn't the limited resources used for this kind of thing be conserved for actually useful purposes? The other problem is that no one wants to pay people for non-productive work, so usually it's the government paying people (either directly or non-directly) and often financing it with debt.
Several auto parts stores in my area will loan you the machine to read the code for no cost. They generally ask to hold your driver's license while you have the device - the intent is that you'll go out in the parking lot use it, and come right back. They found that people generally come back in and buy the parts they need once they know what's going on, so it's quite profitable for them to do this. The only snag is some of the codes are propriety so if you can't find it on Google sometimes only the dealer can tell you what they mean.